EDITIONS

Follow us

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) Wednesday called the Fort Hood killings an 'act of terror' and joined a parade of GOP critics in suggesting that 'political correctness' might have been a factor in not preventing the shooting.

GOP sees Ft. Hood as act of terror

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) Wednesday called the Fort Hood killings an “act of terror” and joined a parade of GOP critics in suggesting that “political correctness” might have been a factor in not preventing the shootings.

“We ought to make sure ‘political correctness’ never impedes national security,” McCain said in a speech at the University of Louisville.

Story Continued Below

McCain’s comments echoed those of a variety of Republican politicians and commentators — as well as Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) — over the past few days as information about the background of the alleged shooter has surfaced in the media. The criticisms, which initially focused on the failure of the administration and the Army to use the word “terrorism” or “jihadism” in connection with Fort Hood, are now being merged with a larger Republican portrayal of the Obama administration’s approach toward terrorism generally.

“It’s very important what we call” the Fort Hood tragedy, said former Bush White House press secretary Dana Perino. “The failure of the connecting of the dots may indicate that in some areas we still have a law enforcement approach to domestic terror threats,” Perino said in a post in POLITICO’s Arena forum. “That approach doesn't stop the attack before it happens — it waits, and then, if the attacker survives, prosecutes ‘to the full extent of the law'! We can't relax on terror threats or revert back to that approach — we need to be proactive to prevent attacks using intelligence gathering. That might mean there are gray lines of political correctness that might make any of us uncomfortable. But look at the price that's paid.”

“Instead of CYA, we could call it CYTI: Cover Your Tragic Incompetence,” conservative commentator James Pinkerton wrote in POLITICO, citing news stories about the military’s failure to spot “warning signs” about Army Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, the alleged Fort Hood shooter.

“So where are the Obamans?” Pinkerton wrote. “They are in the midst of a scandalous breakdown of homeland security, and they don’t seem to realize it. They’re on the edge of a cliff. But inside the White House, they seem eager to be done with Fort Hood, so they can keep marching forward with healthcare.”

The White House has declined so far to wade too far deeply into the argument, though the potential for political damage is apparent. “The danger for the Obama administration, and it is a major danger, is that it will look cool, cerebral and politically correct in the face of what many Americans will see as a grave and growing threat,” historian Walter Russell Mead wrote in Wednesday’s Arena. “Obama's personal popularity is strong enough to do many things; it is not strong enough to withstand a widespread suspicion that he doesn't care enough about protecting the American people from their enemies at home and abroad.”

There is no shortage of criticism, however, from commentators who dispute the notion that such an act of violence can be explained in political or policy terms.

It’s being “politicized,” said Harvard Middle East expert Stephen Walt in an Arena post. “There is no issue that is immune to exploitation by politicians and media commentators. The problem is that there are an infinite number of ‘lessons’ one can draw from a tragic event like this — the strain on our troops from a foolish war, the impact of hateful ideas from the fringe of a great religion (and most religions have them), the individual demons that drove one individual to a violent and senseless act, etc. — and so no limits to the ways it can be used by irresponsible politicians and pundits.”

“Speaking with my other hat on, as a psychopathologist,” said Emory University’s Drew Westen, “I've been concerned that the coverage of this case, and the whole question of whether it was a terrorist act, has been really uninformed by the psychiatric issues involved, and we're not privy to records that could help us understand that. We don't know, for example, if the gunman was in a psychotic episode or had a serious personality disorder, in which case, this whole discussion of whether it was a terrorist act could really be misplaced. The media would do well to focus on some missing college student or the ‘Octomom’ for now if they have nothing more enlightening to do than speculate on matters about which they lack the necessary data to inform until more data are available.”